Quote:

Boot_WB wrote: However I disagree with your interpretation that the judge is "confused," as I believe you are implying the judges whole interpretation is confused, not just this single fact.

The problem is that the crux of his arguement (that Itec isnt a successor company with respect to the contract) is invalid because he is looking at Exhibit G of Document #4 and Exhibit 12 of document #26 and not realizing that he should be looking at Exhibit F of Document #4 and Exhibit #16 of Document #26. He also should have been more then a little disturbed by the letter dated Feb 15, 2004 from Ben Hermans to Pentti Kouri that admits that Itec is the successor company to AI Washington (Document 35-2, page 9) given Hyperions current stance that they were not, which he used as part of his final decision. Given Hyperion's former managing partner (who signed the sale agreement) and was in charge at that time say in a letter the Itec is the successor company, and AI says Itec is the successor company, implying it is in dispute and using that as a key item to show AI wont win the case shows he is confused. Itec is the successor (with respect to the contract) of AI (Washington), saying that may not be true and using that as a key point of evidence in the case is flawed. Period. Now the judge could have ruled that AI didnt show proof that they would suffer significant damages if the injunction was not implmented, and thus not granted the injunction, that way he would have had a leg to stand on.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Boot_WB

Quote:

However I disagree with your interpretation that the judge is "confused," as I believe you are implying the judges whole interpretation is confused, not just this single fact.

And the judge being confused about one point only would mean he is not confused?

Last edited by dirigent on 26-Jun-2007 at 06:43 PM.